Is the playing field level? IOW should Affirmative Action be ended?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Based on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1358450&mesg_id=1359951&page=

I have to get to class so I can't keep up the argument.

[Warpy]

1. The playing field has been fully leveled in one way:

If you are born rich, you will stay rich, no real uphill struggle or downhill slide is possible.

If you're born poor, you'll get poorer, but who cares about a level playing field for the poor?

[Lone Pawn]

4. I would say the new playing field is socioeconomically unfair

more than racially unfair.

[Lithos]

2. Some places yes

Some places no

Look to Wal-Mart for instance where they are still engaging in discrimination against women and minorities.

However, some companies have legitimately worked to remove any barriers for minorties and have created an environment where affirmative action is a burden in bureaucracy.

[Lone Pawn]

3. I think it's costing us badly

I don't think it's helpful at all. Statistically, there's no major benefit to it. All it does now is just get a few extra minorities in colleges and higher-paying jobs and kicks a few whites down half a notch--oh, and cost us votes. It's not at all popular, and I don't even think it's needed. But there's no chance that our significant minority base will allow the party to abandon AA, so it's sort of a moot point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. Please site statistics showing no benefits?

[Lone Pawn]

9. Please cite statistics showing major benefits.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. So you don't have any then.

[HamdenRice]

7. see my post below- you're obviously not part of "reality based" community

nt

[HamdenRice]

6. Pointless discussion -- like trying to talk to a republican about Iraq

Ever notice that when you try to talk to a republican about the Iraq war, before you even start the discussion, you realize it's almost impossible to have a serious discussion? This is because the republican starts from a position that is not "reality based" -- indeed is contemptuous of reality. The republican will start from the position that Sadam "did" 9/11 and we had to get him for that. Then the republican will go on about Sadam having weapons of mass destruction -- we even found them. You can point to the 9/11 Commission Report, or the US government weapon inspector's own conclusion about the absence of WMDs in Iraq. It doesn't matter. The republican will believe what he wants to believe -- "create their own reality," as one administration official put it to the NY Times. So basically there is nothing to talk about, is there?

Sadly, as a Black man in America, I find talking to the overwhelming majority of white people in America about racial issues, including affirmative action, is like talking to a RW republican about the war. I am always starting from "reality based" position. Usually the white person -- whether liberal or conservative -- is starting from an "ideologically based" position. Most White people have little or no grounding in racial realities, so they have to create their own reality -- from the basis of one or another ideological position.

Is the playing field level? Until you have spent time in an inner city neighborhood, where the vast majority of Black people and Hispanic people live, how can we have this conversation? Have you looked at what goes on in a typical inner city school, compared to what goes on in a typical predominantly white school -- whether city or suburban? If not, there isn't much to talk about because my positions will be reality based and yours will be fantasy/ideology based.

The cross-post you used to start the discussion talks about two people applying for the same job -- but this shows abject ignorance and disregard of everything that occurred in each of their lives up until the point of applying for that job.

The post also says all people have disadvantages. Well this is just ignorant clap trap -- creating one's own reality. Of course everyone has advantages and disadvantages; that's not the point. The point is whether there are gross institutional and political and economic advantages and disadvantages that are distributed according to race. I believe there are: I've seen them in action. You apparently believe that the disadvantages of being Black or Hispanic are as randomly distributed as the disadvantage of being short or having curly hair. Well, there's not much to talk about, is there?

I can't even understand why you would raise the issue in such a naive way.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. Uhh...what? The thread I linked was what I was trying to refute

THIS is my post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1358450&mesg_id=1359709&page=

[HamdenRice]

12. Check your first posting in this thread ...

it links to a clueless rant that affirmative action is unfair and obsolete.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. Yes, that belongs to the person who I was trying to refute

I expected the people of DU to come to my aid, but I guess I was wrong.

[HamdenRice]

15. Sorry Semicharmed ...

now I understand your position.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. No worries

:)

[Lone Pawn]

10. Reality-based?

Look. You know nothing of my background. I know the inner city is terrible, and I know it from first-hand experience, though undoubtedly not so extensive as yours. I think that there are still real disadvantages based on birth.

But most of those disadvantages are socioeconomic--a far greater effect then race and race alone. Surely you would not say a white baby born to a single unemployed teen mother in the inner city has a better shot at life than a well-loved black baby born to an upper-middle-class, hard-working black family.

[HamdenRice]

13. This is reality based

First, I never presumed to know anything about your background.

Second, I never said the "inner city is terrible." In fact, it can be a wonderful place to live -- much more interesting and culturally and intellectually stimulating than the sterile suburbs. I am saying, however, that people in the inner city face institutional, economic, educational and other forms of discrimination.

Third, it has been statistically shown that there are vast measurable disadvantages between people of the same socio-economic status but of different races. For example, a federal reserve study divided black and white people into data sets on the basis of income, showed that white people in the poorest category were more likely to be extended credit by financial institutions than black people in the highest income category.

But even if black people and white people of identical socioeconomic status had similar advantages/disadvantages, comparing people across socio-economic levels utterly misses the point: which is that socioeconomic status itself is distributed racially.

Finally, if I sound dismissive about this kind of dialog, I am referring to a growing body of literature by black authors like Derek Bell who have suggested that it is increasingly pointless to have a dialog across racial lines because the different positions really can't be grasped by participants on the other side of the line, and more importantly, such dialog has not and probably will not (if the past is any indication) lead to any useful change.

[USA_1]

16. {previously discussed}

affirmative action claims for reverse discrimination arises in only 2% of all cases

the other 98% remain for conventional forms of discrimination

if you are so hung up over 2%, then you should be FAR angrier for those other 98%


http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html